ML20147C489
| ML20147C489 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/30/1978 |
| From: | Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| References | |
| SECY-78-163B, NUDOCS 7812180298 | |
| Download: ML20147C489 (77) | |
Text
, -
1 Nby er 30,1978 unitto starts sFcy_78 163B NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION For:
INFOR Tne cumnas.M ATIO R ivuus N EP O RT From: Harold R. Denton, Director, Office of lear Reactor Regulation Thru: Executive Director for Operations b
Subject:
ISSUES OF SIGNIFICANCE RELATING TO REVIEW 0F ALTERNATIVE SITES
~
FOR NUCLEAR POWER FACILITIES
Purpose:
To inform the Commission regarding the results of the initial staff effort to identify significant issues relating to the review of alternative sites, major considerations relevant to these issues, and possible courses of action to resolve the issues. The objective of this paper is to initiate a dialogue between the staff and the Commission on these matters as a prelude to possible rulemaking.
This paper, and a memorandum to the Commission from SD that recommends revisions to the policy statement on alternative sites in SECY-78-163 and gives an analysis of the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Seabrook, were prepared in response to the August 15, 1978 memorandum from
~
Chilk to Gossick titled "SECY-78-163 - Revision of SECY-77-433, Policy Statement on Alternative Site Evaluations Under NEPA for Nuclear Generating Stations." Thus, this paper shouid be con-sidered in conjunction with the above referenced policy paper on alternative sites. This paper also will serve as the preliminary effort aimed at eventual development of a proposed rule, recog-nizing that the Commission recently affirmed that the alternative site issue is one of several likely candidates for rulemaking (Issue No. 4 of SECY-78-485, " Preliminary Statement on General Policy for Rulemaking to Improve Nuclear Power Plant Licensing").
Discussion: The initial staff paper recommending a policy on alternative site evaluations (SECY-77-433) was considered by the Commissioc' and includes the thought that the corollary to the "obviously superior" criterion is that there normally must be at least one identified "obviously inferior" quality with regard to the proposed site. The policy statement was not issued, however, and shortly thereafter a staff dissenting opinion was noted concerning the "obviously superior" criterion. The paper was subsequently revised to incorporate the dissenting view (SECY-78-163). On August 15, 1978, a memorandum from Mr. Chilk to Mr. Gossick requested the staff to:
- 1. Revise (as necessary) SECY-78-163 in light of the Commis-sion's Seabrook decision of June 30, 1978, recognizing "that
Contact:
Malcolm L. Ernst, DSE 49-2S016 78121803 %'
- m. _ _ _ _ __. _ _ _
l
. j .,
-The Commissioners' . 2 !
l the impending decision-of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in the consolidated Seabrook cases may have a bearing on the work requested."
- 2. Amplify the policy statement to provide guidanc.e on the -
following items, as a minimum: J l
- a. When.is a site "obviously superior." (Enclosure E)
- b. Whatareacceptablescreeningmetp'ods,andhowmany candidate sites should there be. (Enclosure D)
- c. What should-be the region of interest (i.e., areas:to include in alternative site investigations).
(Enclosure C)
- d. What are the information requirements, including any need'for site-dependent design features. (Enclosure F)
The reason for requesting additional guidance on the above issues was "to actively pursue the development of a comprehen-sive policy position" in anticipation of the preparation of a
' proposed rule. The Commission requested preparation of these l issues in draft . form for discussion in October "to allow the Commission an opportunity'to provide additional direction for the preparation of a proposed rule."
Thestaff,afterdiscussionwithbPE,hasrespondedtothe Commission request by revising (as necessary) SECY-78-163 to conform to the Commission's decision of June 30, 1978, and the Court of Appeals rulings of August 22, 1978, and by providing ,
this'Information Paper to open a discucsion with and receive I further guidance from the Commission on issues of policy l implementation, The staff has identified seven basic issues with respect to the problem of alternative sites, which includes the four addressed by the Commission in the August 15 memorandum. The.three addi- i tional issues identified and discussed by the staff are as l follows:
- 1. What is the NRC's role in the site selection and approval process; i.e., to what extent does the NRC have to exercise
, an independent role under NEPA. (Enclosure B)
W
~
,9 a The Commissioners . --3
- 2. At what' point in~the plant construction process does the consideration of site suitability become the sole criterion
~for reevaluation of alternative sites. (Enclosure G)
- 3. What should be'the criterion for selection and approval of -
.a site.to begin constructon of a nuclear power' plant, assuming that the site has been " pre-approved" through a -
full Early Site Review. (Enclosure H)
In addressing these issues, the staff found it useful to define some terms and make.some premises and assumptions, which are provided in Enclosure A. Enclosures B through H provide draft-discussions of preliminary staff viewpoints on each of the issues. The' format chosen for Enclosures B through H is to facilitate understanding of: the scope and nature of each issue; some technical, legal, and public interest considerations '
associated with each issue; and possible reasonable courses of action (where appropriate) together with associated pros and ,
cons. In areas where reasonable staff consensus exists, such is identified.
There is a critical underlying issue--the degree of importance NRC should place on NEPA alternative site reviews in the overall licensing program, measured by money and manpower resources. In ;
the past, the resources devoted to alternative site evaluations i have been a small fraction of the resources devoted to the NEPA l review, except in unusual cases. -These resources have ranged I from about 4 man months to 3 man years for recent cases. The. I critical issue is whether NRC should, as a policy matter,. assert a strong rule in site selection for nuclear plants and devote substantial and greater resources to this end, or play only a minimal role in site selection and merely comply with clear NEPA requirements.
The following is a somewhat optimistic schedule that could be j
. pursued in the further develop *ient and implementation of policy in this area:
November 1978 - Publication of interim proposed policy on expanded rulemaking (SECY-78-485) '
December 1978 - Publication of policy statement on alterna-tive sites January 1978 - Receipt of public comments on expanced ;
rulemaking j J
O
9 i} .
The Commissioners 4 1
April 1979 - Comtr.ission Paper on proposed rulemaking on ,
alternative sites 1 June 1979 - Publication of proposed rule August 1979 - Receipt of public comments l 1
October 1979 - Commission Paper on final rulemaking i December 1979 - Effective rule The above schedule would have to be extended by at least three .
months, if a public workshop were conducted by the staff on this j issue prior to the development of a proposed rule, or if a j hearing were held on the proposed rule. The staff could adopt '
the above schedule as a goal. Subjects that would not be com-pletely addressed in this initial rulemaking (assuming the proposed schedule) would include complete articulation as to when a site. is "obviously superior" and specific identification of the nature and sufficiency of reconnaissance level data in the various technical review areas. These ' subjects likely would
, have to await the results of ongoing contractor / staff analysis !
and would likely be useful subjects for a public workshop prior ;
to any subsequent proposed revised rules.
It should be noted that one of the issues important to the
, alternative site question is the treatment of public health and safety consideratons'in the overall NEPA balancing process. i This issue is being considered by the staff and the Commission in other forums, and for that reason it is not treated in this document. l Coordination: The Director of the Offic~e of Standards Development concurs.
The Office of the Executive Legal Director has prepared the discussion of legal considerations. The Directors of the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards and State Programs have been kept informed of the development of this paper. OGC, OELD, and OPE have reviewed the paper and believe it to be sufficient to serve as a basis for further discussion.
HNf c~~
Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosures:
See next page
The Commissioners 5
Enclosures:
A. Definitions and Premises B. Issue No. 1 - NRC's Role Vis a Vis Responsibilities of the Applicant, Federal and State Agencies, and Regional and Other Institutions C. Issue No. 2 - Identifying the Region of Interest D. Issue No. 3 The Process of Identifying Candidate Sites E. Issue No. 4 - Criteria for Determining the " Obvious Superiority / Inferiority" of the Alternative / Proposed Sites F. Issue No. 5 - Information Require-ments for Siting Analysis and De'cisions l
G. Issue No. 6 - Reevaluation of the .
Alternative Sites Issue After Plant l Construction Has Begun -
l H. Issue No. 7 - Consideration of I Alternate Si.tes for Applications Involving Pre-Approved Sites DISTRIBUTION Commissioners Commission Staff Offices -
Exec Dir for 0perations Regional Offices ACRS ASLBP ASLAP .
Secretariat I
4 .s , 4 - . .. - -,a a I
O 4 0 s
b n* geFI-* V + =+ *th'-
.f <y' ;
- e* n Q g, .,
-.-.: ., .- , ~,
0 I V
. o s.
S 9 g ',
y - f g.*g,f.4 r , ' g,w.,.. 3
, < o 6'n.g.\e*.
- ,,,e.,
,M < b ,4 g;.
r.. '
'3 - s
, A' . * +. 4
.4,'b ( * *1 . **
, ' I y
.g,.p;s - n:
.2:: - e. - - .*
- vnyjff'* fQ,. ..3;)tyefghg:.pf.b ug&. ]ggg (,Qp 'O&' *' ' -sc . , ...
y ,i. - * *swe
.,va, ..f.,.+-
. 4/;j ,pe O- g** , li n.4.; h' ..(y (',
.,: -- e ,.
n(N
. r
,.g
, , , .. 7._.t .
,f' ,
..w, 4
,1 4 4 .--98't g 4 em M ,y h IiMM= aya, 86p-/i@ g >-
oqf.
ENCLOSURE A I
i s
i i
i 1
i J
t 1
- . ~. ,
I.
1 1
(
f I
, , f"
. Enclosure A a c- ,
Definitions and Premises Definitions
- 1. The relevant set of environmental impact considerations of alternative sites includes all environmental effects of significance to various societal interests that are (i) beneficial or adverse; (ii) direct
.or indirect; (iii) quantifiable or intangible; (iv) short- or long-term; (v) intended or unintended; and (vi) certain or probabilistic in realization. These considerations plus the technological and financial cost considerations comprise the scope of t N'nefit balancing factors required in a NEPA impact statem l
- 2. Reconnaissance level information is defined as information obtained l from published reports, public records, public and private agencies, individuals knowledgeable about the area or site, and from a short field investigation of a site.
- 3. Screenino criteria are factual and judgmental standards by which decisions are' reached to eliminate or accept certain areas or sites i
for further consideration in the seeking of potential candidate 1 sites.
4 6 e
Enclosure A l
l
. l
- 4. impacts. associated with a site include transmission corridor and any regional impacts resultant'from construction and operation of the facility.
[
5.- The validation of information, analyses, and forecasts of environ-mental impacts and technical / economic considerations supplied by the applicant involves the verification of provable facts and the applica-tion of expert judgment to evaluate analyses or forecasts. Any staff affirmation of reasonableness would consider the importance and inherent nature of Jncertainty involved in analysis and: fore-casting, and the costs of gathering additional information or per- -
forming additional analyses in terms of their~ benefits in reducing ,
uncertainty.
- 6. Environmentally preferred alternative site means that, on balance, the environmental impacts at an alternative site are sufficiently ;
less than at the proposed site that a clear preference for the alternate site can be established. The uncertainty in such a l
' I decision.is a function of the available data to support analysis and '
the perceived weights given to various environmental impacts. Thus, i
the term " environmentally preferred" is philosophically related to the term "obviously superior."
4
- 1
^
. Enclosure'A 3-
- 7. A resource area is a reasonably homogeneous area within the region of interest investigated for potential sites. As a rule, the region of interest should contain more than one such area. It is expected that each resource area will be small enough to have essentially similar characteristics (e.g. , geology) and environmental character-istics (e.g., land use patterns, water supply). Resource areas should not be restricted to those containing land owned or controlled by the applicant. (From draft Environmental Standard Review Plan 9.2, Alternate Sites.)
- 8. Environmental effects include adverse and beneficial impacts of the proposed action and its reasonable alternatives on the human environment.
According to the definition proposed by the CEQ; " human environment" shall. be interpreted comprehensively to inc-lude the natural and physical environment and the interaction of people with that environment. This means that exclusively economic or social effects are not intended by themselves to require preparation of an environmental impact statement.
When an environmental impact statement is prepared and economic or social and natural or physical environmental effects are inter-related, then the' environmental impact statement will discuss all of these effects.
on the human environment.
v---, e
Enclosure A ,
-Premises
- 1. The legal responsibility of the 'NRC regarding alternative sites is limited to that-required by;NEPA and the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 and-is to make a decision to accept or reject the proposed site. LIf the proposed site is rejected, the NRC has no responsibil .
ity or authority to require the applicant to. propose or select any
' specific alternative site. <
- 2. Neither NEPA nor NRC policy requires .the selection of the single "best" site from an environmental standpoint.
I
- 3. Neither NEPA nor NRC policy requires the staff to conduct a fully l independent candidate ~ area screening and site identification process; {
i.e. , a process which involves no information demands on applicants.
The degree of independence that should be exercised by the NRC in the review of the applicant's site selection process is discussed as Issue No. 1 (Enclosure B).
- 4. ' NRC policy does not require a determination by staff of a "best" screening-or site selection and evaluation methodology, but-should rely on the development of reasonable and realistic criteria for evaluating the methodology that would accommodate an acceptable range of procedures. ,
L
m - - - + . . ,a..
.w.e ,, - ._ -m... -- a s -a- n .s x ~ -.
. . Enclosure A ;
5-
- 5. The. multi part decision standard, which requires that the identified ~
- candidate sites are "among the best that could reasonably have been found" and that the proposed site is acceptable ily when no alter-native candidate site is "obviously superior," is responsive to NEPA requirements.
In addition to NEPA requirements, the Atomic Energy Act requires i consideration of " site suitability" with respect to health and safety issues. An unsuitable finding on one of these issues poses a
no go" situation.
I
-6. The same alternative site review requirements established for a construction permit should apply to approval of a site in an Early Site Review. -
- 7. ' No a'dditional review of alternative sites would be required at the operating license stage unless there is new information which reason- i ably demonstrates that, considering forward costs, there is a possibil-ity that a cost-benefit analysis would show that the plant should be rebuilt'on.an' alternate site. In practice, this means that alternative sites likely will not be rereviewed and that rejection of the proposed i site would only be on'the oemonstration that the-preposed site is ;
unsuitable with respect to safety or the environment (see Enclosure G).
I L
D' d
o A1.c.h,t i , ,' u ',ssy li . m ~%> ,
44 '
! 8 A WYT -- ;. 2emm p-
.q A en h.Af y- y '8.r.i.fe v 4+ff,$:,,,.o.%'$.'$-T. .ny ;q4 - k ' _
,a..s.,m..v,,+.x.,.,.a.
n .+
~
m . . - .. a g
- '_ Y; 5 ' . , ,. .,
,<, ,, sm.mc_6., .*,0.,...,1' ~I' p .# V,. _. s .a M p th erp' . , .', $.W'sy,
+,3.,
fa ,p .g y #.r.
..m.g ./, ,'c< ,s "3 -a 4 *A._
+4.. ...,"-.
.r 7n .ng.., w w~ -w..
v
- n. n. _v s ; ,, ~ ~ . . . .
. c, ..- , ,
Q 5; 't . - '
%powh;,.f,ekk,.fgy: h..yf* cL y ,f.,, ., , ~#
- Y;,94Qrygy)::' 77;;.,, +
':" ?l gj> ;vwa
. ,..: .m.
. . . .n .s,.c .;w. . % . , . ,_
,w-.
u _ t v.
=n.-m,.e.a, .e,.m. ~. u . . .,. . ., ..
. s s~. , ..
...n,.
j P ,ia. a 5y a,< -- ;g
...,- 7~-_t.
v g h .r. - -,, . e, .
1
'_^tspr,
. .-, . . ~.,s'.. _~
a
.A
,P ENCLOSURE B ;
l l
1 I
l l
i n
9 9
I i
l I
1 i
l
- , 1 i
'e L
'I
.m.. ,
TM{'.
_ . . . . .. .- . . -- .. . . . . - ~ ==-. . . . . - . - - . .. -- . . . . . .
P
,. Enclosure B l
ISSUE N0. 1 l t
?
NRC's' Role Vis-a-Vis Respo_nsibilities of the Applicant, Federal and State Agencies and Regional and Other Institutions Description of Issue This issue.is concerned with the extent and per"ormance of NRC's basic responsibilities under NEPA relative to that of an applicant, another i
Federal agency, or a State or regional agency or institution. It is clear under NEPA t% t N"C has ultimate responsibility to perform the environmental analysis for a nuclear power plant and associated alter-natives, and that an applicant or any other party does not share this ultimate responsibility. By Title 10, Part 51, CFR, NRC imposes voon ,
an applicant a requirement to gather, analyze, and present data and other. '
information in order to aid the Commission in complying with Section 102(2)(C).of NEPA. Guidance on the type and scope of information and ;
analysis required is given in regulatory guides and in specific requests ;
.whenever deficiencies in information or analysis are'found in reviewing i
the environmental report. With few exceptions the role of Federal and i State Agencies and regional and other institutions in supporting NRC's l t
NEPA responsibilities is ad hoc and not well defined. '
, The issue,- simply put, is how far can NRC go in using information and !
I analysis generated.by an applicant', or others, and still. meet the f
v.
...-s.', __ . , - . , . . _ . . ..
- Enclosure B requirements of conducting an independent analysis? What information and analysis can NRC request of others and how must NRC treat that information and analysis?
Technical Considerations It is not likely that the reconnaissance level information available to the staff and the applicant will be greatly different. Therefore, what constitutes an " independent" technical review?
There is an apparent conflict or perceived conflict in either:
- 1. Relying basically on the applicant for information while at the same time discharging the necessary " independence" responsibility; or 1
1
- 2. Not relying on the applicant for information while at the same time stating that the NRC does not select sites.
Legal Considerations NEPA duties cannot be delegated by the cognizant federal agency. Greene County Plann'ing Board v. FPC, 445 F.2d 412 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 849 (1972); Steubing v. Brinegar, 511 F.2d 489 (2d. Cir. 1975).
Consequently, the NRC must be fully responsible for assuring that ade-quately complete and sufficiently accurate information is assembled to permit a reasoned analysis of alternatives, including alternate sites.
i .
Enclosure B j
1 Pursuant to 10 CFR 651.20(a)(3), the NRC requires submittal in an Environ- '
mental Report by Applicants for construction permits of a discussion of l alternatives to the proposed action, including [651.20(d)] adverse data, as well as supporting data. These reports then are utilized in the Staff's NEPA review. When the ER is the primary initial source of Staff information, there must be' sufficient independent Staff validation of the information to assure that the NEPA analysis is the ultimate and sole l 1
responsibility of NRC. Similarly, substantial weight may be given to the l findings of regional, state, or local planning bodies, siting councils, and the like only so long as there is not delegation of the NEPA responsi-bility to " study and develop" alternatives to the proposed federal action.
The Commission has indicated a desire to defer to other federal agency expertise in the assessment of certain impacts; e.g , EPA expertise in evaluating aquatic impacts (CLI-78-1). It has also stated that "the fact I that a competent and responsible state authority has approved the environ-mental acceptability of a site or project after extensive and thorough environmentally sensitive hearings is properly entitled to substantial l weight in the conduct of our own NEPA analysis" (CLI-77-8, 5 N'RC at 527).
The NRC Appeal Board in Seabrook emphasized the appropriate nature of NRC validation as they saw it by reference to review of all of the Applicant's statements with a " trained, dispassionate, and skeptical eye" which exhibits " vigorous probing for possible shortcomings." (ALAB-471 at 51)
.______ _ _ ._ _ _ __ - ~ _
Enclosure B <
4
'Public Interest Considerations Weight given to State and regional (agencies) sources of information and analysis will lend NRC support to the importance of such agencies.
Recognition should be made and weight given in some manner to analyses and decisions made by other recognized siting _ authorities.
NRC manpower requirements are a function of the degree of independence 1
desired ad the use that can be made of other recognized siting i l
authorities. !
1 1
Courses of Action l 1
Option 1 - Conduct NRC's review in a manner that places primary reliance on information provided by the applicant, where the principal focus is to validate that information-in a reasonable manner and provide appropriate
. assuranc' that the applicant has implemented a sufficiently good site i
selection process. This assessment includes the use of some information '
independently gathered by the staff. j Pros Provides an acceptable probability of a sound decision.
I Sufficiently flexible to adjust to case by case _ conditions.
l
1
_,. Enclosure B- ,
5- I Assessment' procedures are technically feasible and relatively easy to apply.
Cons Screening coarseness'is of concern to hearing boards.
Public confidence in approach may be lower than for other options.
Option 2 - Much greater staff involvement in independent information collection and analysis.
Pros Less concern about staff independence on part of hearing boards.
Higher public confidence in process.
Credibil.ity of decision may appear greater.
l Cons Requires.large increase in technical staff. I i
i Duplicates applicant efforts to a greater extent.
i
)
'4
- , - . . _ . . L, ..'_~> . ~ , , . - .. , , . . nn -
Enclosure B ,
On a technical basis the probability of a sound decision is not signific-l antly increased. l l
l Duplicates to a greater extent the involvement of other recognized siting l l
authorities. I 1
l Option 3 - Early alternative site reviews - This option would involve NRC l
reconnaissance level analyses and decisions regarding alternative sites )
and the site selection process prior to the applicant's performance of detailed base-line studies. This is a procedural option as opposed to an
" independence" option, thus it would be combined with either Options 1 or 2, above. This option does, however, have a bearing on the role of the NRC, since the NRC would impose its decisional process earlier.
Pros Reduces the information imbalance and thereby bias in alternative analysis by not requiring (at that time) more than reconnaissance level information on the applicant's preferred site.
Reduces time pressure on staff and others in the assessment of alternative sites.
i
- , Enclosure B 1
l l
Reduces potential for applicant to sink resources into an environmentally less preferred site.
Cons 1
Risks continual attempts to reopen alternate site issue, which could render. this option not viable.
May concern potential applicants because of land acquisition considerations.
l Could conflict with State and other Federal agency (such as EPA) decisional processes.
Ootion 4 - A sequential staff signoff process whereoy the staff would review the acceptability of candidate areas and.of candidate sites before i applicant selection of a proposed site. This option also is a procedural l 1
option which would be combined with either Options 1 or 2, above, and l
which also could be a variation of Option 3. I Pros Provides for a greater assurance of ultimate staff approval of the proposed site. "
l Enclosure B .
Reduces information imbalance.
1 Prevents the applicant from committing resources where the site selection process (and thus perhaps the resultant proposed site) is found unacceptable.
Cons Site selection process would take longer.
Would increase commitment of both applicant and staff resources.
Without hearing at each step some uncertainty of final decision still remains.
Would tend to involve the NRC more in site selection, which would be perceived as reducing " arms-length" independence.
Would tend to come closer to imposing NEPA on the applicant rather than the NRC.
Staff Consensus The staff believes Option 2 " greater and more independent staff involvement" goes further than is required for a technically defensible independent assessment of alternative sites, would not add greatly to the protection
Enclosure B
.9-l 1
of environmental values, and is not warranted considering the increase in NRC resources which would be required.
9 The staff believes Option 3, "early alternative site review," is viable and has merit, although the rule change may need to include criteria to reduce the opportunity for relitigation. Such an option, however, should not be mandatory.
The staff also believes that a substantial postmortem of the Seabrook and other alternate site analyses must be made to provide an explicit under-standing of what constitutes the scope-of review under Option 1 as com-pared to Option 2. OELD believes that there needs to be a better under-standing of the differences between Options 1 and 2 before it could be P
stated whether Option 1 is legally acceptable or Option 2 is legally required.
S e , - - - . ,u.-- - - - - - s
e 4 i 1
2 l y
e 0 1
l 4
.,'f' ~ v ; d < U' 4p,T ,
-y V'*
v * - ? @r*>-
t
-'fI,i ,,Q,n
, 'y1.-M -
y
', ' - #b
-' . , *, '['
s< , 4144-;.V
,.tJ.- ,. .
m .s, , , ,
v% , m . + . . , , e a ,
7.. ,
,+ -
$ .. .: . , p.. P. < ,).
- b% ,f'.f N , s'$ :; M .y_ l
. , , Y n *q
'A ll p sy ' * > ,yga r=0 41 J
$l+ *+u"_.A*-
5u - .+4 r~ g..'< .3...;
n $vc+-.<,.n,.,-
, , weg
,a.. q:yrsq:,, c. - - > m:4 . g.. . y r...
.3....
'k . I g g, I
l e,w d e:. e- s .
1 i
ENCLOSURE C
\
1 1
l 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
ma !
j l
% m 5 %.
e
') f ' " 4
.'p.
e ':1."' ;
Enclosure C ISSUE NO. 2 4
Identifying the Region of Interest (ROI)
Description of Issue The main issue is to establish which parameters are valid, appropriate, and sufficient to use as a basis for reviewing a " region of interest" (ROI) in the conduct of NRC's review of an applicant's, lead applicant's, or involved State agency's bounding of "the universe of sites". This issue involves the following subissues:
4 What are the parameters which should be considered?
i l
An initial list might include the boundaries of the State or the applicant's service area, population levels, applicant's present and projected generating capacity and power deficient regions, projected power pool supply and demand factors, multiplicity of environmental settings or resources areas, and institutional factors.
How should these parameters be applied?
Threshold levels could be established for each of the applicable parameters which are then consistently applied in all cases.
- Enclosure C i e v
g What role should be given to environmental as opposed to internal .'
j technological and financial considerations?
9 i
l -
What role'should be given to institutional constraints and l regional equity?
- j. Technical Considerations-
' Difficulty in defining the ROI based on. assumptions and forecasts l'
as to load centers, grid stability, service reliability, and interutility' power exchanges.
i l -
Difficulty in assessing importance of institutional factors,
{ such as ability of utility to finance facilities outside of l service area or state and ability for, utilities to obtain a
l.
necessary permits.
i 4
i Lecal Considerations j NEPA requires that reasonable alternatives to the proposed action be ,
l studied and developed by NRC. Therefore, the original geographic scope i
- of the alternate site analysis must reflect the geographic range of sites L where one would reasonably consider siting the proposed. facility. Since circumstances of ownership, transmission infrastructure and patterns of demand vary from project to' project, any rigid definition of region of interest may, in a given case, fail to meet the test of reasonableness.
v- - , , - , .
l Enclosure C l
Past NRC adjudicatory decisions have focused upon the lead applicant's I service area as reasonable in cases where no special circumstances exist (Bailly, ALAB-224) and upon a broader approach when region-wide trans-mission grids and region-wide expected uses of the proposed power are part of the circumstances [Seabrook - CLI-77-8 and CLI-78-(June 30,1978)].
i Public Interest Considerations I
Possible institutional conflicts. I Regional equity, such as diversion of land, water and other resources as well as stresses imposed on community facilities in one region for the benefits or increased electrical supply in another region.
Possible impact on ratepayer of facility siting in area remote from loads to be served.
Staff and other resources expended in review of extended search !
I areas compared to improvements gained in environmental quality. '
Courses of Action Option 1: Largest reasonable ROI, such as service area of applicant plus service area of regional power pool and/or all intertie utilities.
9
Enclosure C ,
Pros minimize litigative risks maximize assurance that all available environmental. resource alternatives have been included .
eliminate need for iteration during latter stages of study'
. Cons cumbersome and perhaps technically unnecessary may be wasteful of utility and staff resources likely to include areas with institutional bars to siting Option 2: ROI defined by site search, conducted by examining areas extending outward from load center (s) until adequate number of suitable sites, incorporating a variety of environmental resources, are discovered.
Pros environmentally focused choice technically rational - once reasonable group is developed, further search yields diminishing returns Cons residual risk that preferable sites have been overlooked increased litigation risk
Enclosure C
.s.
Option 3: ROI defined as State and/or service area, expanded or contracted as necessary until adequate number of suitable sites, incorporating a variety of environmental resources are discovered.
Pros likely to avoid institutional bars environmentally focused choice technically rational Cons residual risk that preferable sites have been overlooked increased litigation risk i
I Option 4: Bypass ROI and go directly to defining candidate areas using l specific criteria, provided a variety of environmental resource areas are encompassed. Appropriate criteria might include:
l a) Watersheds, water availability l b) Transmission distances and existing grids c) Institutional factors d) Sensitive environmental areas
Enclosure C G- .' ,' I 1
l Pros l 1
introduces element of pragmatism perhaps concept of ROI is not important )
environmentally focused choice technically rational l l
l Cons l l
residual risk that preferable sites have been overlooked j increased litigation risk Option 5: Any of the above, without explicit consideration of environmental i
factors. Defer environmental considerations for potential site ;
and candidate site stage.
Pros ease of reviews - conserve resources i
l Cons risk that environmental factors may be short-changed may require re-evaluation of ROI at completion of study increased litigative risk (greater than other options)
Enclosure C
_7 Staff Consensus The staff has concluded that any of the above options may be defensible on a case by case basis. The overriding criterion is that the identifi- ;
cation of candidate sites must be accomplished in an environmentally sensitive manner to provide reasonable assurance that an environmental i
resource area was not overlooked that might have yielded a site that is q obviously superior to any of the candidates. Also, the staff has con-cluded that the size of the ROI considered (and thus the amount of data required and extent of analysis) should be commensurate with the likeli-i hood that an "obviously superior" siting alternative would be identified, ;
l if a larger ROI were considered. '
)
1 1
l e
e
1 J
. e 1 I
i 4.a 1
1 i
4 e
4
,, , -#<rty. ;
- WN $$-'N f Y h,
.-y {T-'4.
.u;,
u,,i.,..,.. s
.. .n.e_,.>;.w
< ed. +
,,,2.,[1Me r > Vt
( yf 19 pW '4pA4 9'*f '*$ eg # ;, W;, yneyn !:- ,: *;-- , , u,". , ,. ,
, . l! , :t ., es
, _. nof '* 'yj4.i,j, r.gg.jg , . m .n w..
,s,
.e ,i vr -
O .. sp' . 4 l 1e 4 L.redf - \ r , Yhf = - er-f'f,'w ,,,e--
, '4cc'?.IV..%t'M'y ,11 - ,
-% . < e ;
vsf.ny ,u. cia;+.$ M. 4ff.H p J M 49c
~ .
s4.w.+4. p. ,%,,%,,r :y - ,- _>
, ,;. . . ,, 1 l
a: s .... ., , 1 l
. . o
.' 2. f, t*Sq
,x
'89 4 ,, $ y *W.e ENCLOSURE D I
l l 9
Enclosure 0 ISSUE NO. 3 l The Process of Identifying Candidate Sites I i Description of Issue What are acceptable methods an'd criteria'for screening candidate areas
~
and winnowing of sites which reduce the number of' comparison studies to a number which permitsEdetailed and reasoned comparison? What should this number be? Should criteria differ to reflect- contrasting regional / utility situations. When are candidates "among the best that could reasonably have been found?" Technical Considerations There are several fundamental technical problems associated with the site identification and screening process. 1, . The universe of possible locations is often (though not always) very large. For example, it is not uncommon for such areas as watersheds, service areas or states to be in excess of 10,000 square miles. Hence, screening methodologies appear techically attractive; however, total. search procedures are not out of the question.
- 2. It is. difficult to define screening criteria that avoid the appearance of bias while limiting the region of search. However a search is O
.-- ,e ,-m- - - - , er
Enclosure D - i 1 i conducted, it is open to criticism on.the grounds that an expanded i search.might have yielded better candidates.
- 3. In the' staff's experience, the implicit assumption that good sites are difficultEto find is usually not true, based on purely technical 4
standards. i 7 '4. Because of the essential environmental equivalence to the proposed
. site of at least some sites in any group an applicant may offer, the staff has found it technically difficult to defend the chosen site
! as genuineiy different from all others. Staff credibility becomes i
~
an issue because there is usually no firm technical basis for rejecting
~
i ; j closely competing sites, yet such rejection has frequently become l
-l the accepted method for recommending acceptance of the proposed site.
Leaal Considerations
- A process of limiting the. range of alternative sites to a finite number 3
of specific candidate sites'would appear to satisfy the NEPA manda'te to l study and develop reasonable alternatives to the proposed-action so long
'as the screening process preserves full consideration of the basic alterna- J tive of siting the facility elsewhere.in order to preseve and protect
* - w w
- g. 3 Enclosure D 3- ,
i environmental values. Consequently, the legal test to apply to the screening process is whether it functions to promote the goal of studying l and developing environmentally desirable alternatives. To meet this task, the screening process must take care not to (1) mask environmental l considerations by emphasis on non-environmental matters, (2) bias the l process' in favor.of the proposed site, (3) make the process so coarse or information-weak that environmental considerations are inadequately reflected. ' Among the potential screening methods which could run afoul of the legal requirements are methodologies which (1) are primarily motivated by many . l traditional utility siting objectives, such as engineering ease or ease of property acquisition, (2) employ regional assumptions without adequate study to assure that the assumptions actually apply to all sites in the region involved (See Pilgrim, ALAB-479), (3) bias the process in favor of sites so homogenous that no " range" of environmental alternatives.is discovered, and (4) use the "obviously superior" standard as a screening methodology as well as a basis for final comparison of the proposed site with the final slate of candidate sites. (See NECNP v. NRC, Docket Nos. 1219, 77-1306, 77-1342, and 78-1013 (August 22, 1978) at p. 13 of slip opinion. See also Pilorim, ALAB-479 at 20-21. ) t e e a- m - -,
Enclosure D .
.l public Interest Considerations ,
l
- 1. The staff is uncertain how the cost of information, screening, and assessing sites and the societal penalty for error should enter into limiting the scope of.the search and the number of sites considered.
l
- 2. The staff is concerned that the public interest might not be served ;
by extreme emphasis on alternative site analysis,.since the staff believes that the environmental penalty for failing to locate.an
.obviously' superior site is not always great. Sites not identified remain available for future use. Also, the NRC cost benefit analysis !
cannot fully reflect competing uses for resources, so in the overall context it is really not clear whether an "obviously superior" site for nuclear usage really is "obviously superior" when considering
~
all competing uses. ,
)
i Courses of Action The staff has considered options.which vary in cost, time for implementa-tion, degree of certainty of the result, appearance of bias, and technical defensibility. l Option 1: Establish criteria for an environmentally sensitive screening or site location process, for example: l
Enclosure 0 Suboption A: Minimize prior screening and require an essentially total search, comparative process. This would involve superimposing a grid (mesh of one square mile) over the region of interest and then assessing on a comparative basis every element of the grid one by one. ! Suboption B: Require a multistage screening process which ultimately results in a relatively small group of sites (say 5 or 10) which can l be assessed in detail. 1 In this process criteria would be established which would permit concentrating the search in the areas most likely to yield acceptable sites without need for examining each location one by one. The region of interest would be subdivided into several resource areas by br~oad criteria such as availability of water or avoidance of metropolitan areas. These areas would ther reer,ed using successively more detailed criteria until a sn ^oup of surviving sites is obtained. The site-specific attribute. these would then be weighed and balanced to determine whether obviously superior sites within the surviving group exist. This would be a workable process which theoretically would result in the ultimate identification of sites that are among the best that could G
_. .~ - ,
>a Enclosure.D. .
6- < i
- 3 E
i reasonably'have been found. It would require development of a large l set of successively more detailed selection criteria, however. . i i
- - Appearance of bias could be avoided to some extent by requiring the site search to be conducted within several resource areas with at
- least one site brought forward from each area. As the screen becomes i
finer, however, the quality of remaining sites improves and the reasons for rejection of candidates in order to accomplish further l j screening become more controversial and result in only marginal improvement in protection of environmental qualities, i !- Suboption C: Require a statistically-based selection procedure. 1 This procedure would rely on established principles of statistical l stratified ;ampling. Criteria would be established for defining i- . re of relatively homogeneous land and water use ch'a . Frnm these, statistically valid samples could be drawn wnicn would reflect the environmental attributes of the resource area. - The sample of sites would include both good and bad places in about the same proportion as they exist in the resource area. This wouldenablethescreeningofthesampleinsteadofthewholearea.E M Stratification by rasource area could conceivably reduce the previously mentioned 10,000 sq. mile area by as much as 90%. A few percent sample size requirement would thus correspond to aboet 20-40 sites wnich should' reflect the range of environmental attributes available in the , c
-selected. resource area. The number of sites for final comparison !
would vary with the degree of stratification possible within the original unstratified area.
'l
' Enclosure 0 7-In this way time and resources needed.for~ analysis.could most pro-duc'Ively be brought to bear on relatively few sites which are known "to be representative of the resource areas.
~
l A statistical method enables rigorous specification of sample sizes I 1
,(number of sites) for specified levels of confidence. It also provides rigorous justification for limiting the search process a
within a resource area, since a second or third sample does no more than provide estimates of resaurce area parameters just as the first ! one did. I l Adoption of a statistical method would require acceptance of prob- l l abilistic assurance of quality in the candidate groups. The process H l could not be used to locate a "best site" but would txt effective 'in meeting the criterion "from among the best that could reasonably have been found." . l l Pros (for. Option 1)
' 1. The establishment of an' environmentally sensitive screening process !
1 would reduce the likelihood of unintentional bias and would likely ; 1 improve credibility. a e
Enclosure D. . 3-
- 2. Suboption A would be comprehensive and would have the highest prob-
. ability of identifying the "best" site, assuming there were agreement as to the desired qualities of the "best" site.
- 3. Suboption A combined with the largest ROI would essentially answer all technical and legal criticisms regarding site selection and 4 would be technically feasible.
Cons (for Option 1)
- 1. Suboption A is inefficient, inordinately expensive, and would require
- evelopment of a computer routine and complete data base for implementation.
- 2. Screehing parameters and assigned weights for any screening process would be controversial.
- 3. Intentional bias (preselection) could be difficult to prevent or identify in any reasonable NRC review of screening methodology.
l
- 4. Screening processes which result in large numbers of individual site comparisons are difficult to justify on a benefit-cost basis; i.e.,
the benefits to overall environmental protection arguably decrease quickly. 1
, , Enclosure D-
- 9. ;
1 4 i
- 5. It is questionable whether imposing environmental considerations in the~ initial screening process would be cost. effective in the enhance- !
ment' of environmental protection, since criteria used for ear'ly l
' screening based on non-environmental. considerations likely would not .
significantly narrow environmentally sound siting options. Option 2: Accept any reasonable screening process provided candidate sites meet previously established standards of environmental quality. In this orocess, primary focus is on the results of the search. The applicant may bring forward a small group of sites (tay 5 or 10) which meet reasonable pre-established chreshold environmental standards. ! Detailed weighing and balancing would be performed an this group to fulfill the NEPA obligation to examine alternatives. This method is about equally dependent on threshold' standards and compar-ative evaluations. Adopting it would require rejection of the concept of an. exclusively comparative decision mode (Subcption 1.A). It also is based on the premise that in most cases screening methods which explicitly ; include early consideration of environmental factors serve no genuine environmental purposes, whatever their merit when tested procedurally. l This option is based on the technical judgment that a slate of candidste i sites that meet reasonable threshold environmental criteria is likely to contain sites that environmentally are among the best that reasonably 1 could have been found. .
_ , .~ _ _ _ _ . ._ - . I Enclosure 0, .
]
I i Pros ,
- 1. In the staff's technical judgment, the. process is a close match to technical-needs.
P
- 2. The process of establishing standards follows concepts of environ-mental' standards pursued in other areas of environmental protection.
- 3. The extent of the study is bounded.
- 4. The process is results oriented and could limit unproductive debate over methodology.
'5. Offers better predictability of the NRC review process than Option 1.
Cons
- 1. 'Could run a higher risk that comparatively superior sites will be i
missed or that bias (unintentional or otherwise) may be not detected.
- 2. Criteria may vary from region to region and would have to be more rigorous'than in Option 1.
- 3. May require specification of minimum number of sites, but this is likely under Option 1, also.
Enclosure D o
', ', l
- 4. As specified may be interpreted as not complying with the law, although it is not clear that NEPA requires exclusive reliance on a specific site-by-site comparative methodology. In this respect, it is clear also that suboptions 8 and C of Option 1 also rely to a large cxtent on a noncomparative methodology.
i Staff Consensus
- Applicants should be given a range of options for site selection. A form of Option 1 may be best when the candidate sites are likely to vary significantly in overall quality (i.e., in situations where it may be difficult to demonstrate rather uniform resource areas). Option I would also likely be best when there are likely no sites available that could meet all (or nearly all) of. the important threshold standards.
It would appear that Option 2 is a close match to technical needs and could be a useful option in situations where there is likely to be a number of good sites available. If, in this situation, the threshold values could be set stringently enough, it could be reasonably demon-striated that sites meeting these threshold values would be among the best that reasonably could have been found.
.The question of how many candidate sites to require is not addressed specifically in this paper, and it is doubtful that a particular number '
I I 4
., - . . . ., ...m,. -
Enclosure D could readily be' agreed upon. However, it appeared that the range might be from three to ten, and there seemed to be a consensus that there should be at least one site from each major resource area within the ROI. e l l l l l I l
4 A i
*e 4
Ed Ae$'* r" 4 % 4 ,'gg, T . . I ,
.,#i- "Q,,.
j'**Pe
, .cy l a. ' * * , .,
D-
. , ,,.h
~ ""7.-, -
3,.,
-rs '.g.5
~ '"
,+["'.,, ,_ .f Q .* !y f.] , , ,*
s- e v i
-r ; y-; . . , a >
w ,. -4}.< . ,,. ..w ..wawm,: v, . w-,e , - .,
- a . ui*fc ....s.4 3, . * ;iC ,
g - 9 y 'g s' . n 5 r .
- r..,v as - s- 34 e g e-
- 85 *..-[n6 f, .
e' .,s 7
- ;A . . , g.g-:payygg,, ny"l,4. ;.h.g, fggy,y;,f;'E = .: 2 - ,
. . g +4 4-
, . ., 2 .,.-, s,. .
, . s.2,, . .-,9-- , . .
- 3p;wy-e : ' ,.;,.qv.,-
y;;yg
. .. 3,7d'
- i. .. ,. ,,.% .
,,'m'~~,y J f (
"[ "*j
. u f, .$ 's,m',gg W
._. . . . , , .,. 7 k-' g,
#N ' ,i. . . -
'# A . **
.- ,......'gM ,,N
. ..s. ,
., 4- l s .; i . rt - r
- ( '.r.,.
.i e
, , s . .
, . s
,%'4r .- - f
- i
'*vs'-
- . ,. ~ . . . --,
i i a e ENCLOSURE E - , 1 1 1
. l 1
1 1 I 1
. 1 s e-..p % 2 w.6 t cu,a+
S v l i a e m
. s. J. . 4 u- _. m
i 2 j
~ ,- ,- Enclosure E I ISSUE NO. 4 I I
l 1
-CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING THE "0BVIOUS SUPERIORITY /INFERIO: l OF THE ALTERNATIVE / PROPOSED SITE l
Description of Issue When'is a candidate site "obviously superior" to an alternative si' How can the concept of "obviously inferior" be best utilized to focus the j alternative site review along a more useful and efficient path? How does one " measure" the worth of and appropriately balance on a commensurable basis the various. factors affecting site selection, many of which are not
. quant iif able? Should the NRC restrict its analyses to those alternative sites identified by the applicant (assuming that the applicant utilized an acceptable screening / winnowing process)? If_not, under what circum-stances (or decision criteria) should comparisons of other sites be made by NRC?
Answers to the above questions clearly are dependent on decisions regarding the region of. interest, the screening process, and data requirements -- issues that are discussed in other enclosures. Answers also are dependent t 4
- - . ,,.J--
- l Er. closure it ,
+ . < t ? 2- ?- .
~
1/ on technical definition of the magnitude and certainty of environmental
~
l l impact which would warrant tripping the "obviously superior" criterion. i To develop such definitions will require substantial additional time as j well as staff (and perhaps contractual) effort. - i , l i j What are or should be the underpinings to the "obviously superior" i j criterion? There are three possibilities:- the inherent imprecision of cost-benefit analyses using unquantifiable factors; the likelihood that f. l if more information were obtained~for the alternative sites additional j i
- . site defects would be discovered; and the role that NRC should pla'y in j the site selection and approval process. The first two formed the basis for the Commission's and First Circuit's decisions in Seabrook.
! . l l i 1 1/
, l
? In the consideration of alternative sites for the Sterling Power l Project, the Appeals Board on October 19,1978 (ALAB-502 at 23) stated:
"Indeed, were we called upon to determine on the record brought to us which site was on balance the
- best choice from an environmental standpoint, our i task would be a most difficult one. All that we must decide is whether Ginna is "obviously" -- in other words, clearly and substantially -- superior
. to Sterling." ; 1 1 j ._._.__________-_.____-._.__,._.__. ,-+,u..
Enclosure E 3-The choice of bases for the "obviously superior"' standard is of more than- ' academic interest. If, as the staff holds, the existence of more informa-tion regarding the preferred' site plays the smaller role in the choice of I decision standard, then it makes a lesser difference when the standard applies (applicant's site selection process or NRC's own site evaluation process), NRC's' duty to use efforts to quantify environmental factors is emphasized, and a small but nevertheless measurable superiority could be grounds for rejecting an applicant's preferred site. On the other hand, if disparity of information plays the critical role, then NRC is under a duty to reduce data uncertainties to some reasonable level; and it becomes important when the standard applies, because at some early stage of the applicant's site selection process there is equivalent data available for
~
the preferred site and alternative sites and it would be illogical to apply the "obviously superior" criterion. Also, small but measurable superiority should not compel rejection of the preferred site because, in theory, the missing information about alternatives would reveal additional defects that would outweigh the slight superiority. , l The purpose of this enclosure at this time is not to attempt to resolve i this issue. 'It is only to present two of perhaps many possible modes of , implementation of the "obviously superior" criterion to stimulate further discussion. The first is the present-day, process-oriented approach which would always evaluate first the applicant's site selection process
1 i Enclosure E , l and then employ the "obviously superior" standard in a comparative evalua- l tion with the alternative sites. The second is a possible, results-oriented approach that focuses first on the qualities of the proposed site and on the employment of the "obviously superior" standard in a comparative evaluation with the identified alternatives. Only if "obviously inferior" 1 qualities are identified at the proposed site would the applicant's site ! l selection process be evaluated. It should be noted that this second approach would not require the NRC to determine whether the candidate sites were "among the best that could reasonably have been found," unlese I the proposed site had some "obviously inferior" qualities.
- 1. PRESENT-DAY IMPLEMENTATION OF THE "0BVIOUSLY SUPERIOR" STANDARD UNDER NEPA In discussing its reasons for promulgating the "obviously superior" standard for comparing alternative sites to the site proposed by an applicant, the Commission focused on the potential that the appearance of I l
slight superiority at an alternative site may be a function of the uncer- l l tainty of comparative analyses and/or incompleteness of information j rather than a real difference between the sites. In other words, if all , l the salient features of the various sites (both alternates and the proposed l i site) were completely understood, and if the comparisons could precisely ! l quantify these features, then perhaps a measurably small1 difference l l 1 . I 1# This is arguably different from a formulation that would require rejection of the preferred site only if the alternative site , 1 was substantially better. I i
Enclosure E between the two could nevertheless warrant preferring the alternate site. i The "obviously superior" notion is designed to take account of the i oncertainty which.is involved in the comparison. It is analogous to the confidence interval about an empirical estimate, i.e. , that empirical,/s range within which the correct estimate is likely to lie some acceptable ) percentage of the time. The analogy is. imperfect because eval'ation u of the characteristics of potential sites is not susceptible to statistically testable empirical estimation. M Consequently, "obviously superior" alternatives are those which are actually superior; i.e., the differences are real and not merely a function of either the limited quantity and quality of. information available at the alternative site (s)
,as compared to that available at the proposed site or of the limitations of cost-benefit analysis. In light of these considerations, the NRC staff must consider adequacy of information (Reference Enclosure F) and seek to refine cost-benefit analytical techniques to minimize, where reasonable, these inherent uncertainties. Only after the uncertainty is reduced to the reasonable minimum should the Staff be concerned with whether the remaining differences render the alternative site (s) obviously superior.
N This notion of the question of confidence that differences are real is highlighted in the recent First Circuit decision: "The [obviously superior) standard is designed to guarantee that a proposed site will not be rejected in favor of a substitute unless, on the basis of appropriate sutdy, the Commission can be confident that such action is' called for." NECNP v. NRC, Docket Nos. 77-1219, 77-1306, 77-1342 and 78-1013 (August 22, 1978) at 13 of slip opinion, emphasis added. 4
-- e-- -
Enclosure E , The Commission has expressly stated that Licensing Boards should reject proposed sites "not when some alternate site appears marginally 'better' but only when~ the alternative is obviously superior" (CLI-77-8, 5 NRC at 530). The Commission further stated in a footnote that the NEPA _ analysis of. alternatives is to be conducted without regard to this standard. The First C.ircuit Court of Appeals reflected this intent in its observation in NECNP v. NRC, Docket Nos. 77-1219, 77-1306, 77-1342 and 78-1013 (August 22, 1978). "The obvious superiority standard . . . says nothing about whether or how the required studies will be performed. Rather it goes to what the Commission will do with findings that the studies will generate." (Slip opinion at 13) An NRC Appeal Board, in Pilarim (ALAB-479), has interpreted that the obviously superior test "comes into play after alte. atives have been identified and their salient features explored." (ALAB-479 at 20-21) _ 1 l l Based upon the above-described underlying considerations, Appeal Boards l 1 apparently have concluded that the "obviously superior" standard does not provide direct guidance as to how the alternate site review process is to ] be' conducted, but comes into play as a " final" comparative standard. l Under their view of the requirements of NEPA to " study and develop" alternatives, the Staff is responsible for assuring (either directly or by independent review of work done by applicants) that a complete process of developing alternative sites is used. The process suggested by the staff would be along the lines of (a) determining the region of interest; i
j
, j Enclosure'E-4 0 (b) developing a process for screening from among the universe of potential I
sites to a manageable group of sites which are "among the best that could reasonably be found" in the region of interest; (c) engaging in detailed'
- study of reconnaissance-level information to thoroughly investigate the relevant features of the slate of sites to determine whether alternate siting would offer environmental preference over the proposed site; and (d) where environmental preference could be expected from alternate siting, engaging in a full cost-benefit analysis to determine whether the alternate site is, in fact, "obviously superior" to the proposed site.
This approach to implementation of the "obviously superior" standard is supported by the NRC staff as an acceptable methodology. As discussed 1 below, however, some staff members believe that a different methodology is'also acceptable under NEPA and the "obviously superior" standard. I I 1
- 2. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE "0BVIOUSLY SUPERIOR" STANDARD FOR ALTERNATE SITE COMPARISON BY INITIAL FOCUS ON THE PROPOSED SITE In promulgating its standard for alternate site comparison, the Commission recognized that both applicant and NRC have available to them much more information about the site for which a specific project is proposed than about potential. alternative sites (CLI-77-8). The First Circuit Court of 4
e .. -
Enclosure E -
. 1
.g. -
l l l Appeals also took note of the same fact (NECNP v. NRC at 13 of slip opinion).E These decisions also both took note of the fact that the investiga' tion into potential alternate sites is undertaken by the NRC so that it can make an environmentally sensitive decision about the site before it, rather than for the purpose of selecting a site for the facility. Given these two realities, plus the fact that no site selection process can provide complete assurance that there is no obviously superior site and the fact that forward cost analyses will realistically tilt the decision somewhat in favor of the proposed site, it may make sense for the alternate site inquiry to focu- first on the site for which licensing is proposed. Since the criterion for rejecting that site will ultimately be whether an i alternate site is obviously superior to it based on a cost-benefit analysis, the characteristics of the proposed site are necessarily fundamental to I l the analytical process. Further, the prospect that an obviously superior site could be found is necessarily a function, among other things, of the potential for undesirable impacts at the proposed site. ; l M The Commission and the Court have expressed the opinion that more 1 information increases the probability of detecting blemishes at the i proposed site. The Staff holds the opinion that such blemishes ' likely would not affect siting decisions to any great extent since few, if any, additional significant NEPA problems are likely to be identified after an adeouate reconnaissance level investigation. The detailed baseline information is valuable primarily for accurately defining the extent of mitigation required for previously identified problems, although it also provides confirmation as to whether there are other substantial impacts that could warrant rejecting the site in favor of an alternative. j
Enclosure E In light of these realities of information availabilities and analytical and administrative processes, some members of the NRC Staff strongly favor an approach to the alternate site inquiry which focuses first on the proposed site; i.e., an approach that is more results-oriented as opposed to procedure-oriented. For many environmental parameters, it appears feasible to describe levels of impact on a regional basis which are as small as might reasonably be anticipated given that a nuclear facility is to be constructed at all. For such paraneters, threshold levels at the low range of expected impacts could be designated below which it is unlikely that shifting to another site could furthe reduce the impacts to such an extent that such a site would be deemed environ-mentally preferable. By focusing upon the impacts at a proposed site in terms of such threshold levels, the NRC Staff could reach reliable initial l
)
judgments about the environmental soundness of the proposed site. This j analytical process could then be utilized in deciding the scope, effort, and rigor to be devoted to the NRC task of " studying and developing" l alternative sites. It is envisioned that, where the proposed site does not exceed any threshold levels, the review performed by the NRC would be
, to assure that the alternative sites represent at least two resource areas and to perform a comparative examination of the proposed site and the identified alternatives. Where, however, the environmental conse-quences of siting at the proposed site clearly and substantially exceed one or more threshold levels for important environmental parameters (or
a - -.- . ~ :n.. - , . , .-..-,. . . . . . - = a .. - . - .~ , . ,. .. - ~ Enclosure &- . 10 - where there is unusual uncertainty about the expected impacts), the NRC , would review the' site selection process to the degree necessary to provide
-reasonable assurance that obviously superior alternatives were not precluded.
~
The same logic would dictate the wisdom or necessity of expanding the scope of the search (ROI) for alternatives. The logic of the above is , that'when an investigation of the proposed site in the utility preferred general area for a facility reveals impacts that do not exceed reasonable threshold levels of environmental impact, the environmental penalty for limiting the scope of the alternate site inquiry is small compared to the public cost incurred in inquiring further into this matter. On the other , hand, when the applicant's site selection process fails to uncover a site with environmental impacts at' the luw range of expected impacts from nuclear power plants in that region, the importance of inquiring further into the site selection process and perhaps also expanding the search for sites is apparent. The ultimate' geographical bounds on such a process # , oriented review would be the point beyond which it would simply not be reasonable to go, for reasons of transmission distances, lack of relation-ship between generation site and use of the power, and the like (Ref. Issue Nos. 2 and 3).
- In summary, where.the anticipated impacts at a proposed site is below
^
reasonable threshold levels, the environmental benefits of extensive, complex' methodologies for locating and analyzing further alternatives are l l
a Enclosure E
- 11 .
likely to be'small. However, the probable environmental benefits are likely to' be-greater when the proposed site is manifestly inferior in' some way or. ways (i.e., above threshold levels). q The process herein described should not be confused with the analysis of whether a proposed site is environmentally acceptable. In regions where it is subsequently determined that any nuclear power plant site will likely exceed the described threshold levels (and where no alternative l I technology is a superior alternative), a site may well be approved despite l l
. such impacts. However, the search for alternative sites in such an area will have been a rigorous one and the environmental acceptability of the proposed site will be based upon a reasonable assurance (i.e., an accept--
able risk of error) that there is no obviously superior site. The usefulness and environmental defensibility of this process depend considerably upon the appropriateness of the designated threshold levels. 3 If the thresholds are set at too low a. level of impact (i.e., at de , minimus impact levels), all sites would exceed one or more levels of impact, and thus the process would be meaningless. On the other hand, if the levels are set at too high a level of impact, the process would not be sensitive to environmental protection. The Staff members who support this approach believe that appropriate thresholds can be set, although the task will be'a difficult and controversial one. i 1
-1 c -. - - --m-,- --u-m-< me w - , ---, 1.,<<
Enclosure E . l
- J Staff Consensus and Differences l There is no staff consensus on the alternate methods of implementing the j "obviously superior" standard. While two " options" were presented in j this enclosure, there clearly'are other options available for discussion
- purposes, and the primary objective is to open dialogue with the Commission e ,
- in the area to obtain guidance whether to pursue the line of thought
! represented by the second option. The only staff consensus is that, i l . where the applicant has proposed a good site (i.e., one with no inferior 3 attributes), it is not in the public interest for the NRC process to i focus great attention on the merits of the site selection process that led l the applicant to the proposed site. 1 4 An example of divergent opinion that exists regarding the second option ! is described below. The option, as written above, describes a process
- that first focuses on the qualities of the proposed site. If no obviously inferior qualities are.identifiedM and the proposed and alternative
- sites represent at least two resource areas, the merits of the site selection process would not be evaluated. However, the proposed site a would then be compared to the identified alternatives to determine whether one of the alternatives is obviously superior. There are at j l
E As measured against predetermined thresholds of impact which would be set regionally'and would represent a low' level of impact for each
. parameter, given that a nuclear power plant will be built and operated.
~s e<
)
. . . .l
, . ,. Enclosure E- 1
. .. 1 13 - '
l least'two'suboptions to the.above that received some support by various members of the staff, as follows:
.l. The'first sub option is one where an additional criterion is imposed as a prerequisite for'not inquiring .into the . merits of the applicant's site selection process. This criterion would require that at-least one of the identified alternative sites in another resource area '
also not have any identified obviously inferior qualities. The l l purpose of this is to give added assurance that the alternatives are l not " straw men" to make the proposed site look. good.
- 2. The second sub option is one which would not require the final comparative evaluation against the identified alternative sites. 4 This option would' suffer a higher degree of litigative risk, because it would appear on the surface to circumvent the NEPA required {
cons'ideration of alternatives. However, it is felt by some, that a defensible rationale could be logically developed that the setting ) of environmentally-sensitive thresholds in and of itself inherently represeilts a consideration of alternatives; i.e., poorer alternatives are automatically rejected. Also, it is felt by some that a site , that met such reasonable threshold values would be sufficiently good I that, in all likelihood, it would be environmentally equivalent to
'any other alternative that also met the thresholds; i.e., the final i
5 . _~: , , 2 _., - -- - m. - , - ._ - . .
Enclosure E ,
~
comparative evaluation, even if the alternatives also met the threshold values, would likely not result in the identification of an obviously superior alternative. O
}
g
i - > 4
. r- ,
1
]
l i l 1 i
-av,>
, 8/ '$Mn M ,. s{".,,*O Yr%- #
nse,
- d 4'Is ll' * ,f- i ', %< =
e s h
"$h' 4,,' R > *.
l lANww 3 s-en .. .,a n M # L MF. L eeg4 $a, W w,C,j') 'g4%#% , SD-+ v- ,(,- "
'?%-
),* > b 2nrPA .. c ..;..u.
g t,
-'.n ,:
yT"*" 0
'W k.-*.+,- 4E ,,,' ,-,
. o, .. V c' '. ., ' ,h.e'.te k
.,,. o .s't ra" . (' '..e' t~-4 %*
.t l t. ,. .,
t a , r
-{
( g e=4%%,43
. . > ' ,f ^fpy( 4 . 4 [YS'*t 4
-5'5-
'2 8'd _
'O
.9 I
fi"# g.#,9 t'y f e' ', ,'4 4 ,+. 4 s. M* Nkt.t - . ,j s,%*' t'*
-** - ' ,P p-s'%
' ^&"' .'"'M:*iMMMShy$6f's?Ch &RmMW"'1 4:.W A% "l*'
7 j x.- . -
" ~ > '
L4t d < - ~^ ' ~ 3 sbfp S. 5. 9.)y0 ;SN," ~ - - $?,
.2
.,,.. M. 2.,,g59.%. w% N I.S. v m WA...%!*.S'i 7y. . - . ~
;, -a eM. . .' [i.,
,.,s.,_
'?tf) e e
i i l
~
I ghe $ ENCLOSURE F 1 1 e l I i i e 4 I I I J d d'. 1 1 I l I N i l l
- - . Enclosure F e
- t ISSUE N0. 5 Information Requirements for Siting Analysis and Decisions Description of Issue What is the nature and extent of data and analyses required to comparatively evaluate alternate sites with an acceptable level of confidence in the site selection? What is the extent that any site oe r ' dant plant features need to be worked out?
Legal Considerations NEPA requires that federal agencies collect and study information necessary to reach a rational decision, but not that they conduct exhaustive studies beyond those sufficient for sound decision making. Cape Henry Bird Club
- v. Laird, 359 F. Supp. 404, 421-22 (1973), aff'd 484 F.2d 453 (4th Cir.
1973). See Louisiana Environmental Society v. Brinegar, 407 F. Supp. 1309, 1322 (W.D. La. 1976); City of North Miami v. Train, 337 F. Supp. 1264, 1272 (S.D. Fla. 1974). Both the Commission (CLI-77-8) and the First Circuit Court of Appeal [NECNP v. NRC (August 22, 1978) at 13 of slip opinion] have emphasized that far closer environmental scrutiny of the proposed site will have been performed than is feasible at alternative sites. Consequently, the amount of information required must be sufficient to permit a reasoned analysis of the alternative of siting the facility elsewhere but need not be sufficient to permit a full-blown NEPA analysis of an alternative site as if it were the proposed federal action.
,,,.,---n, , . , . _ - - , , , ,
Enclosure F. . .
+
NRC adjudicatory _ decisions promulgated by Appeal Boards have provided some examples of the level of detail they regard as appropriate:
- 1. Habitat - ALAB-479 at 24.
"Whether the e.;imination of a ' wildlife habitat' is to be condemned hinges on whether one is talking of eagles ' nests or rodents' nests.
The significance of the destruction cannot be evaluated without some indication of the nature of the habitat, the types of species, and the extent of destruction involved, to suggest but a few matters."
- 2. Aesthetic effects of cooling towers - ALAB-471 at 54, 60.
at 54 "Another site-related variable, of course, is the number of residents and tourists to whom the towers or their plumes would be visible." (A lengthy. footnote then distinguishes among permanent ; and summer residents, over-night and daily transients).
- 3. Meteorologically dependent effects of cooling towers -ALAB-471 at ;
51, 52. at 52 ". ..the significance of having and properly analyzing meteoro-logical data for the site in question." -
- 4. Socioeconomic impacts - ALAB-471 at 57, 58.
at 58 "Without examining into the particular facts of each community'c situation, no one can be ... certain what disadvantages will accrue" (The previous page discusses governmental services - fire, police, education - local economy and tax structure). 1
- 5. Population density - ALAB-471 at 59. i Insufficient detail risks an illegally biased review process as it inter-acts with the "obviously superior" standard to the extent that the '
"obviously superior" standard is designed to reflect the uncertainties l
due to information gaps (as opposed to uncertainties in cost-benefit balancing) when comparing a proposed site to an alternative; i.e., the
. . , -- Enclosure-F presence of substantial.information gaps may make it harder to apply the obviously superior standard.
Discussion Guidance and policy' exists (Reg. Guide 4.2, Reg. Guide 4.7, Environmental-Standard Review Plans) defining information 'to be provided for alternate site analysis on the basis of reconnaissance' level information (RLI). The nature and extent of data and the analyses to be performed on this data are partially stipulated in the guides. The staff has undertaken a technical assistance program to define the need, applicability, proper utilization, scope, source of information, and content of RLI. There is general agreement that the staff's analysis will not be satisfied by cursory gathering of miscellaneous data but will involve a review of available relevant literature, unpublished data available from qualified experts, inspection of the site by qualified experts, and utilization of relevant records from state and local agencies. .The RLI will not include the detailed. time-dependent studies normally performed to provide.a baseline of information at the proposed site. The staff document being developed on RLI will attempt to develop criteria by which to' judge the adequacy of that information, i.e., how much infor-mation is enough. This will require the development of " gating criteria" by which the applicant and reviewer may judge whether enough information has been acquired to support a defensible decision concerning each of the environmental 1 factors of concern.
l Enclosure F, . . j 4 i The RLI must provfde a basis'for two levels of staff analysis. The first i is screening; the second is comparative analysis. RLI will also provide ; insight into possible mitigation of environmental impacts that could offset apparent inferior quantities of a site. An obvious question arises concerning NRC site evaluation procedure, if l adequate' reconnaissance level information does not exist. This question l 1 would likely have little significance since it is probably valid to assume that in the large majority of cases environmental information tends to exist and be available in proportion to the human esteem of the f resource. The broad array of environmental interests, e.g., fishing, l
' hunting, hiking, recreation, birding, etc. , that have sizable consti-tuencies makes it unlikely that there would be complete ignorance of any major valued resource.
The-amount of information gathered on each alternative site must meet tests of adequacy, which could be provided by the ' gating criteria' mentioned above. Enough information must be available to insure an acceptable level of uncertainty about the validity of the decision at each site. T'he amount of information required will vary according to the degree of difficulty in predicting impacts, and the degree of importance of an impact to the overall decision regarding alternative sites. In cases where it is not clear that enough information was utilized to assure an acceptable. level of confidence in the decision, it would I
Enclosure F 5 probably be better to err on the side of too much data rather than too little. This is because of the stress NEPA places on the need for full environmental disclosure. , There are sound reasons to limit the amount of information gathered. Environmental factors which demonstrate random properties (e.g., larval densities, fish population) have a fundament.al range of variability through time and location that can not be reduced by additional data gathering. The only benefit of gathering more data on these kinds of characteristics would be to reduce sampling error and to improve our estimates of how large this variability is. Further, the methods for sampling natural populations have a degree of uncertainty in their results that, when coupled with the state-of-the-art to predict environmental impacts, provide additional limitations on the Emount of data useful for alternate site evaluations. There are also economic constraints on the amount of . data that should be collected for alternative site analyses. There is clearly a cost to the review and analysis of information that must be reasonably balanced against the likelihood of significant improvement in the overall protection of the environment. Also, there is obviously a trade-off between the amount of information and analysis to be done at each site and the number cf sites that can'be treated within a reasonable level of manpower commit-ment. It would be counterproductive to force either side of this balance
f Enclosure F . . to increase to the extent that the other would be reduced below an accept-able level of confidence in the results. For example, while meteorologicai ., data is relatively inexpensive to obtain for a region that could encompass a a potential alternative site, application of analytical codes to resolve site-specific uncertainties is expensive. Guidance is needed concerning appropriate limits of site specific analyses required of such data at . each site under evaluation and how such tradeoffs should be prcperly balanced. . The second major portion of this issue concerns the extent to which site specific impacts need to be worked out at the alternative site evaluation stage of the licensing process. RLI would not provide details on a , specific site for some areas of technical review-(e.g., the presence of an endangered species or a special archeological feature).1 However, the alternate site review process would not be inappropriately biased, because the failure to discover such details would not likely favor the proposed site. 9 In summary, the staff has identified several important questions regard-ing the extent and use of information in the review of the applicant's B site selection. These questions are: 1/RLI could indicate that suitable habitat for endangered species might be affected or the potential for a special archeological rescurce. -
, Enclosure F
.y.
- 1. The degree of assurance that must be achieved in predicting impacts of significance.
- 2. The amount of information that is required to provide the necessary degree of assurance (i.e., when can reasonable limits be placed on the amount of reconnaissance level information and analysis).
- 3. The role that threshold levels of impact can play in the determina-tion of how much information is needed.
- 4. The extent to which detailed regional and/or site specific data must be collected and analyzed.
- 5. The extent to which the mitigation of impacts should be considered in alternative site analyses.
Staff Consensus The staff generally agrees with the philosophy that NEPA's full disclosure requirement should not demand identifying all reconnaissance level informa-tion on all subjects' of interest to siting and the subsequent detailed analysis of all these data. Both the amount of data required and the extent of analysis should be matched to the importance of the impact and the degree of certainty required as to the likelihood and magnitude of impact.
- --- ---- - ----. ---- e n e l o s ure7---
The paper proceeds on the premise that an adequate alternative site evaluation can normally be performed using so-called " reconnaissance , level information." NEPA does not specify the level of information required for alternative site evaluations, but NEPA has been construed to mandate a kind of balancing test with regard to data gaps--significant data gaps should be remedied if the benefits of obtaining the information , in terms of reducing uncertainty exceed the costs, including delay costs, required to obtain the additional data. This suggests that no inflexible standard can be adopted to the effect that no more than reconnaissance level information can ever be required. . 9
+
g 5 09 s 1
e t 4' y
#0
# e r . p4
% n > 4 g b
d 0
-PO.
sl_6 <"g* ,4 #,,
-r' / -a-
. p, s ,,gm
, g r,
w, . t r-
/.
g e . .,
- 'd ^ i , e av- t 4 * =m .
s b *s-c. k v4 , ,a , ~- * - ~
. .e d.
Pf # wr4 k g4 *g **[V
- 2?'d
*N gg ,g.
# g* *
.g g. ., # [# '. fd,, f. [ ' , w )T' ,' Q *' f (,0 ..- . . .afa
, , _',3 <,t .. . . t ,--s...- ~ ~ , . . . . . ,,s b, ,, Ab$[ik 8 ']^ '.- N , IhY,,.; Y '
. ~ . . .,
" p n.u.. ,,. _j,.. +,..
.g',
.,',.'* I e.44i*P-
.e.
G ENCLOSURE G b pr k e
/
e I s
- m. a q a
+
Enclosure G ISSUE NO. 6 Reevaluation of the Alternative Sites Issue After Plant Construction Has Begun Description of Issue Is there a point in the plant construction process (after CP issuance) at I which reconsideration of alternative sites should be precluded except soley on the basis of site suitability? At the OL stage it has been proposed that alternative sites not be rereviewed unless there is a reasonably meritorious argument that a forward looking cost-benefit analysis could result in rejection of the proposed site. Thus, in practical terms, the grounds for rareview of the proposed site would essentially rest on the issue of site suitability (see SECV 163). At.present, after issuance of the CP, any rereview of the proposed site would be based on: I a. new information that the proposed site is unsuitable, or
- b. newinformationrelevanttotheissueofalternativesites,1!
which then would require a rereview of the alternative sites and a decision based on NEPA balancing which appropriately considers forward costs (i.e., economic and environmental costs of proceeding at the proposed site compared to an alternate site). l' Ref. 10 CFR 51.21.
Enclosure G .. .
.g.
Technical Considerations There are no technical problems associated with the preparation of a cost-benefit analysis of the alternative site question which considers , forward costs. . i legal Considerations At some point after issuance of the CP, the alternative of siting it elsewhere will no longer be a reasonable alternative for purposes of NEPA. However, that point may be very late (even OL or cperating stage) if some fundamental question of site suitability arises. Otherwise, the evalua-tion of when it becomes unreasonable to consider alternate siting will depend on the point at which comparative forward costs and comparative proximity to the provision of needed (or desirably substitutable) power so favor the partially constructed site that there is no real possibility that an alternative site could be obviously superior to it. ; Public Interest Considerations The reason for possibly limiting the grounds for site rejection at some point after CP issuance is the magnitude of resources committed to the project; i.e. , after the plant is essentially built, the likelihood that the cost-benefit analysis would result in rejection of the proposed site is vanishingly small. If this premise is true, ther tqe funds committed to reevaluate the alternate sites are not cost effective. 1
Enclosure G
. ># i,-
i ,
".c' g - b v r-
#"' .#' ; I' j$h .'s , J'D'
kud 4
- s 'if gh
- s. , 4 4 -,s#,.
..+se e
H~3 BAS 073N3 (. 4 v I 4
,a w
, Enclosure H ISSUE N0. 7 Consideration of Alternate Sites for Aoplications Involving Pre-approved Sites Statement of Issue If an application is submitted for a site or for utilization of a pre-approved site in a region where there are one or more additional pre-approved (or
" banked") sites that might conceivably be used in satisfying the same need for power, the NRC would be faced with the problem of whether and perhaps how to apply the "obviously superior" test. A possible (and perhaps likely) interpretation could be that the NRC could or should require rereview to determine proper sequencing (i.e., may have to reject use of one pre-approved site in favor of another). Another ramification is that the "obviously superior" test arguably may not even be operative, since equivalent detailed information would be available on all pre-approved sites.
Technical Considerations A systematic. site selection process which has an expanded " region of interest" should identify potentially viable candidate sites. A finding of environmental equivalence, i.e. , no site is environmentally preferable
. . . . . - - . . - . . .. . . = - - -.
Enclosure H ,, , '. to any other, for such a group of sites should be sufficient to preclude any consideration of sequencing at a later date. Restricted regions of interest for Early Site Reviews or possibly changing standards for the review of alternative sites, however,'would make it more likely that obviously superior alternatives exist which had not been considered in review of the pre-approved site. The l':kelihood of an additional pre-approved site which had never been compared to the proposed site, and thus could be obviously superior, would thus be increased. ; With regard to the second point (i.e. , the applicability of the "obviously. superior" test), the judgment of technical staff is that the cornerstone of this test is the uncertainty in the ' cost-benefit analysis rather than the disparity between reconnaissance level data and detailed baseline studies. The staff believes that reconnaissance level data gives sufficient information (in most case-' to make valid siting decisions, and that while the usefulness of baseline studies is to some extent confirmatory, the primary purpose is to make valid mitigation decisions regarding site-specific design. Leaal Considerations In-the licensing of Site A, Site B might be deemed not obviously superior. However,-if Site A is banked and Site B is then submitted for review and s 5 e n r-n- . . , - - . -
Enclosure H i . ' - '
,3.-
' for use prior to Site A, it could be challenged that Site A should be used unless Site A is reevaluated and deemed not to be obviously superior to Site B.
Also, if the existence of detailed information for Site B as weil as for Site A makes the criterion of "obviously superior" inoperative, what would . or should be the new comparison criterion and how should it be invoked? Public Interest Considerations It is certainly in the public interest not to require unnecessary rereview of pre-approved sites, since it is unlikely that much additional environ-mental protection would be provided. Also, it is likely that eventually all banked sites would be used.for power production or for some other use, even if there were some small near-term environmental improvement due to sequencing. Courses of Action Option 1 - The NRC could choose te rat address this problem and leave it to' the staff and Boards to handle oi a case-by-case basis. Pros This could be a controversia1Earea which has no case precedent. i 1 4
Enclosure H ,. . 4-Cons This could eliminate the banked site as a viable option. Relitigation likely, with little to be gained (if anything) from the ., l expenditure of public and private funds. Option 2 - The NRC could place no additional requirements on applicants but seek legislation and/or develop regulations which preclude re examination . of alternative sites when a pre-approved site is used in an application absent significant new information on the suitability of the proposed site. Pros . This would resolve the basic problem. Would likely not result in degradation of the environment. \s-Cons Could be perceived as nct providing adequate environmental protection If this is adopted, then site suitability should also be the operative criterion for reopening any alternative site question after issuance of an LWA or a CP, otherwise there would be a mismatch of standards for reopening this issue. May not be consistent with NEPA 4 *
. . . , Enclosure H Option 3 - The NRC could recommend systematic selection procedures and expanded regions of interest and allow complete utility choice when environ-mental equivalence has been demonstrated between potential pre-approved sites regardless of whether they were pre-approved in separate or combined applications as long as they were compared and examined through the EIS and hearing process and had been found environmentally equivalent.
Any sequencing evident between groups of pre-approved sites would probably have to be maintained. Pros This would resolve much of the basic problem Would correctly be perceived as providing adequate environmental protection. Cons Could require relitigation regarding proper sequencing for those banked sites that were not compared and found environmentally equivalent. Staff Consensus There is no immediate staff consensus on the detailed approach to resolu-tion of this problem. There is staff consensus that an applicant should be allowed to choose between environmentally equivalent pre-approved sites that will satisfy his needs.
- _ _ -}}